WA Mtnhunter- though we've had a fair number of disagreements, I doubt many of them have been on constitutionality. I tend to be a fairly strict constructionist, where I get into friction with people on this site is when I suggest that the constitution should be strictly applied to BOTH republican AND democratic administrations. Its funny really, because in effect libertyfirst and Dave both agree with me. We all think there is a lot of wasteful spending going on and that the census should be conducted very differently than it has been. Really that's a good enough argument. the $50/person price tag and the laundry list of ridiculous questions are enough to present a rock solid case that substantial reforms are needed. But then they go a step further, clawing for even more support for their argument, they attempt to assert that any questions other than the ones necessary to determine representation in the house of representatives are unconstitutional. Admittedly a very strong argument.... if it were valid. This is the point where the rational thinking alarms start going off in my head. You see, like you, I know that while the government may do many things that I do not like, that does not necessarily make those things unconstitutional. So, I put on my critical thinking hat. Does the constitution say that the census can only ask the # of residents per house? nope! as a matter of fact goes so far as to say that details of the census are left up to congress to decide. Thereby giving congress the power to conduct the census in the manner they see fit (as long as it dosen't conflict with the 4th amendment) and completely nullifying the 10th amendment unconstitutionality argument. then I thought to myself, wait a minute! the founding fathers held a census of their own! I wonder what questions they asked? It turns out they themselves asked quesitons other than merely the ones necessary to determine representation in the house. Thus, showing that the framers and by extension, the constitution did not intend to limit the census to only such questions and rendering the unconstitutionality argument doubly nullified. So, you see what happened here?, Dave essentially agrees with me on what should change. Its just that he went a step too far in justifying that assertion and when I pointed out that he had stepped over the bounds of reality he immediately concluded that I must be some big government liberal hippie who is begging to be forced to conform. He apparently thinks that I want the government to "invade his privacy anyway they see fit" Where did he come to that conclusion? why would I even bother talking about the constitution if that were the case? though I don't have the ability to peer into a man's soul and discern his true feelings, it appears that Dave and many people like him divide the world into two camps. The first camp agrees with him on absolutely everything down to last detail of his justification. It is a very small camp indeed. This is the camp of the righteous, the just, the brave, and the patriotic. But if someone disagrees in the slightest, even on a detail of his justification, then they belong in the other camp, there is no middle ground. The other camp is entirely comprised of limp-wristed, America-hating, big-government, freedom-hating, naive hippies. Not a single person in this camp can ever have a good idea, and if they are doing something a certain way then that is by definition the wrong way to do it. Such a world view is extremely damaging, it prevents one from examining the logical underpinnings of their own arguments and makes considering new ideas unthinkable. When such a world view infects a political party it can have the same effect on the party's actions. This must be guarded against at all costs if we want a party whose actions actions are grounded in rational thought and logic rather than emotion and partisanship. A few decades back we had a pretty awesome President. Maybe you've heard of him before? His name was Ronald Reagan. He was quite the wise man and a skilled orator if ever there was one. He had a quote I'd like to leave you with to sum up my feelings on this matter. When talking about how some elements of the republican party were trying to squash internal debate by demanding absolute loyalty to a predetermined party platform he said: "If any two men agree agree on absolutely everything, then at least one them isn't doing any thinking"

again though, a rather different argument from the whole thing being unconstitutional isn't it?

I would argue that rather than rely on "gut feelings", we train our personnel, like the Israeli's do, to recognize the signs suspicious behavior (often much more subtle than someone yelling on a cell phone or wearing funny clothes) but as long as you're talking about selecting people based on behavior as opposed to race or religion (that includes NOT picking someone because of their race or religion) then I guess you're drinking the liberal kool aid right along with me. but lets face it, I don't think thats what people like libertyfirst are calling for. They want some races to get screened while other races get free passes, and I think I have clearly demonstrated that that is a horrible idea not because it hurts anyone's feelings but because it is ineffective.

so you're NOT arguing for racial or religious profiling, you're arguing for behavioral profiling? in other words, you're agreeing with me while calling me a kool-aid drinking liberal?...